Educators’ Libel Suit Against Group Fails

A legal-advocacy group did not act with malice when it alleged in a
press release that two North Carolina educators had violated a
student’s rights, even though the student had made up her story
about being forced to remove a reference to Jesus from a class
presentation, a federal appeals court has ruled.

The 6th grade student at C.B. Eller Elementary School in Elkin,
N.C., identified in court papers as "HD," admitted she had also lied
about a claim that her teacher had required her to read the word "damn"
aloud in class from an assigned book.

Before the girl’s admission, however, lawyers with the
Rutherford Institute, a Charlottesville, Va.-based organization that
often litigates religious-freedom cases, had demanded in a letter to
the superintendent of the Wilkes County, N.C., district that the
teacher and the school principal apologize to the girl over the alleged
infringement of her First Amendment rights. Rutherford also issued a
press release about the November 1999 allegations.

Once the girl admitted she had lied, Rutherford quickly issued a
press release acknowledging the admission and apologizing for its
earlier press release.

Principal Vickie C. Hugger and teacher Carolyn Settle of Eller
Elementary sued the Rutherford Institute and two of its officials,
President John W. Whitehead and chief litigation counsel Steven H.
Aden, in a North Carolina trial court, alleging defamation and
infliction of emotional distress.

The case was removed to the federal district court in Statesville,
N.C., where a judge ruled that while the defendants had committed libel
under North Carolina law, the principal and the teacher could not
recover damages under the First Amendment because they were public
officials and the Rutherford Institute did not act with actual malice,
the standard set by the U.S. Supreme Court for libel cases involving
such officials.

In an April 12 opinion, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the 4th Circuit, in Richmond, Va., ruled unanimously for
the Rutherford defendants.

No Reckless Disregard

The incident began when HD’s mother got in touch with the
Rutherford Institute to report that the teacher had forced her daughter
to erase the letters WWJD—a familiar abbreviation for "What Would
Jesus Do?"—from a classroom presentation. The mother also
reported her daughter’s claim that the teacher had made her read
the word "damn" aloud in class.

Rutherford staff members interviewed the mother and student, then
sent a letter to the Wilkes County school district stating that legal
action would be pursued if a written apology was not sent to the
student and copies sent to all district employees.

Meanwhile, the district’s lawyer investigated the claims and
told the Rutherford Institute that he doubted the veracity of the
student’s allegations.

The institute again interviewed the mother and student, who insisted
the girl was not lying. The two provided the names of several purported
witnesses to the incidents. Rutherford tried to reach the witnesses,
but did not hear back from any of them. On Nov. 16, 1999, the institute
distributed a press release about the case and posted it on its Web
site. The release identified the elementary school, but did not name
the teacher or the principal.

The 4th Circuit panel declined to decide whether the principal and
the teacher were public officials for libel-law purposes. But it found
that the alleged conduct discussed in the Rutherford Institute’s
press release related to a matter of public concern, and thus the
plaintiffs could recover damages only if the institute had acted with
actual malice. The U.S. Supreme Court has said that a finding of actual
malice requires that the publisher of a statement knew it was false or
acted with a "reckless disregard" for whether it was true or false.

The appeals court noted that Rutherford had issued the press release
only after following up on the school district lawyer’s
concerns.

"Although a reasonable person may have waited to hear from one of
the corroborating witnesses before issuing the press release," the
court said, the Rutherford Institute’s "actions are not those of
one acting with reckless disregard for the truth."

John M. Logsdon, the lawyer for the two educators, said he was
disappointed with the approach the 4th Circuit panel took, saying it
"cleverly danced around the constitutional issue" of whether the
teacher and principal were public officials under libel law. He said
the plaintiffs were reviewing their options for appealing the case.

Vol. 23, Issue 33, Page 3

Published in Print: April 28, 2004, as Educators’ Libel Suit Against Group Fails

Notice: We recently upgraded our comments. (Learn more here.) If you are logged in as a subscriber or registered user and already have a Display Name on edweek.org, you can post comments. If you do not already have a Display Name, please create one here.

Ground Rules for Posting
We encourage lively debate, but please be respectful of others. Profanity and personal attacks are prohibited. By commenting, you are agreeing to abide by our user agreement.
All comments are public.